Ex Parte Schwarz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13792303 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131792,303 03/11/2013 Frederick M. Schwarz
54549 7590 08/30/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
71885US02;
67097-2451PUS1
6442
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and
ROBERT E. MALECKI
Appeal2015-000392
Application 13/792,303
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-
13. Claims 4, 5, and 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration. (Final Act.
1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 This Appeal is related to Appeal Number 2014-009020.
2 The real party in interest is identified as United Technologies Corporation.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-000392
Application 13/792,303
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to an exhaust nozzle for an
elongated geared turbofan with high bypass ratio. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A propulsion system comprising:
afan;
a gear;
a turbine configured to drive said gear to drive said fan,
said turbine having an exit point, and a diameter (DJ defined at
said exit point;
a nacelle surrounding a core engine housing, said fan
configured to deliver air into a bypass duct defined between said
nacelle and said core engine housing; and
a core engine exhaust nozzle downstream of said exit
point, with a downstream most point of said core engine exhaust
nozzle being defined at a distance (Le or Ln) from the exit point,
wherein a ratio of said distance (Le or Ln) to said diameter
(Dt) is greater than or equal to about 0. 90.
Rejection
Claims 1-3 and 6-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Winter3 and Rudolph.4 (Final Act. 3-5.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs (App. Br. 2-4; Reply Br. 1 ). We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and
3 US 2009/0139243 Al, published June 4, 2009.
4 US 5,908,159, issued June 1, 1999.
2
Appeal2015-000392
Application 13/792,303
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, in the Answer (see Ans. 2-3), and in the Advisory Action. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Winter teaches the ratio
recited in claim 1 because Winter does not state that its drawings are to
scale. (App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 1.) We note claim 1 does not expressly recite
that the diameter Dt is the diameter of the turbine at the exit point. The
claim merely states that "a diameter" is defined at the exit point. 5 Thus,
whether or not Winter's drawings are to scale, they show a length from the
exit point to the downstream end of the nozzle, and a diameter at the exit
point may be defined that would yield a ratio greater than or equal to about
0.90, as recited in claim 1.
Even if we interpret the claimed diameter Dt as the diameter of the
turbine at its exit point, as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 3), we agree with
the Examiner that Rudolph teaches the ratio of the claimed distance (i.e., the
distance from the exit point of the turbine to the downstream-most point of
the core engine exhaust nozzle) to the diameter of the turbine at the exit
point is greater than or equal to about 0.90, as recited in claim 1 (Final Act.
4; Ans. 2-3). In particular, the Examiner finds Rudolph teaches an exhaust
nozzle that has an internal plug 58 with a maximum angle a of 15 degrees
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3 (citing Rudolph col. 5, 11. 61-65)), as shown in
Figure 2, which is reproduced below:
5 Contrast to claim 1 of related application 14/038,886, which recites
"diameter (Dt) defined as the diameter of a last blade airfoil stage in the
turbine at said exit point."
3
Appeal2015-000392
Application 131792,303
Figure 2 of Rudolph shows a side view of a chute ejector nozzle
in an intermediate bypass ratio engine, the nozzle being
configured for noise suppression. (Rudolph col. 4, 11. 6-9.)
Using basic trigonometry,6 the Examiner finds the ratio of the
diameter of Rudolph's plug to its length is greater than 1.8. (Final Act. 4;
Ans. 2.) The Examiner also finds the diameter of Rudolph's turbine at the
exit is less than the maximum diameter of the plug. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.)
We agree with these findings, which show Rudolph teaches the ratio of the
length defined in claim 1 to the diameter of the turbine is greater than 0.90.
Appellants argue "[t]here is nothing within Rudolph that discloses the
diameter of its turbine section, nor the length from the end of a plug to the
6 The cotangent of 15 degrees, divided by 2, gives the minimum ratio of the
length of the plug 58 along the longitudinal axis c/L shown in Figure 2 of
Rudolph to the diameter of the plug at its widest point.
4
Appeal2015-000392
Application 13/792,303
exit point of a turbine section" because Figure 2 of Rudolph does not include
the turbine section. (App. Br. 3.) The Examiner finds, however, that the
diameter of Rudolph's turbine at its exit would be inside the core flow
shown as arrow 24 on the left side of Figure 2. (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 2
("Fig. 1 [of Rudolph] shows core flow 24 in reference to turbine blade
18.").) We agree with these findings.
Appellants also contend there is no reason to combine Rudolph and
Winter. (App. Br. 3--4.) Appellants argue Rudolph does not involve a gas
turbine engine with a gear reduction and does not tie a noise reduction to any
increase in the claimed ratio. (Id.) Appellants also contend a worker in this
art would normally seek to shorten an engine to reduce weight. (Id. at 4.)
"What is unexpected and surprising," according to Appellants, "is that
increasing the engine length relative to the turbine diameter improves engine
aerodynamics, as this would be counterintuitive to a worker of ordinary skill
in the art who is not privy to appellant's disclosure." (Id.)
We do not agree with Appellants' premise that one of skill in the art
would be surprised that altering the geometry of the nozzle in a turbine
would alter its aerodynamics. Although one of skill in the art may seek to
reduce length and weight where possible, the skilled person would also
recognize that changes in geometry will affect fluid flow within and around
the turbine engine. Thus, even if a gear reduction allows for fewer turbine
stages, one of skill in the art would have recognized that shortening the
entire core housing could negatively affect how fluid flows in and around
the housing. Accordingly, Appellants' argument of unexpected results or
that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention has not apprised
us of error in the rejection.
5
Appeal2015-000392
Application 13/792,303
In addition, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
reasoning for combining the teachings of Winter and Rudolph. As the
Examiner finds, Rudolph teaches that its ejector nozzle helps to reduce jet
noise. (Final Act. 4 (citing Rudolph col. 2, 11. 29-32); Ans. 2.) Part of the
structure of Rudolph's exhaust nozzle is the angle alpha, which the
Examiner relies on as teaching the ratio recited in claim 1. (Ans. 3.) Thus,
even if Rudolph does not tie only the claimed ratio to a reduction in noise,
one of skill in the art would still have had reason to use Rudolph's noise-
reducing nozzle with Winter's turbine, resulting in the claimed ratio.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Winter and Rudolph. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 3,
and 6-13, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 2--4).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 6-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6